Saturday, January 6, 2007

REYNOLDS AND ROBERTS, REVISIONIST REPUBLICANS

Interestingly enough, among the throngs of those willing to publicly question the official 9/11 story and offer a MIHOP alternative, some are former Republican Party functionaries, or people with suspicious links to same. All have credentials and the ability to cite their GOP affiliations to dodge charges of obvious partisan politics, although at least two fall into the decreasingly subtle rift between the Bush administration “neocons” and disgruntled traditional conservatives. One who shares this view and the most direct Bush-9/11 Truth link is Morgan Reynolds, who had been the chief economist for the Department of Labor in George W’s first term, 2001-02. He explained in an interview and follow-up e-mail with the LibertyForum website:

“I had no idea what the Bush bunch was really like when I went to Washington in 2001. I didn't know then what I know now: neocons, O-I-L, etc. It was one part personal, one part ideological and one part adventure when I showed up for work at DOL on Sept. 4, 2001, exactly one week before 9/11." [1]

"No planes" Reynolds back in his days with team Bush

The circumstances surrounding the end of his tenure at DoL in 2002 is unclear. He later admitted a delayed realization of what was happening; "I must admit that I was slow to catch on to the emerging fascist state.” Reynolds has written for the Lew Rockwell website since late 2003, opposed to the Cheney-led neoconservatives. It wasn't until 2005 that he came out explicitly about his inside job suspicions. In June he published a piece stating that “if demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11,” which he believes to be the case, “then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling.” He also cited the difficulty in getting the science straight, since “explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.” [2]

Reynolds buys the Frustrating fraud whole-heartedly, noting the “absence or near-absence of conventional airplane wreckage” at the Pentagon crash site. Actually he said “at each crash site,” incredibly pointing to evidence that there were no big planes at all involved in the attacks. How we all saw what didn’t actually happen is left unexplained – perhaps holographic illusions or simply computer graphics on the tee-vee and the power of myth retroactively convincing the eyewitnesses. In March 2006 he declared triumphantly “the WTC demolitions are proven and the official 9/11 airliner tales are proven hogwash.” [3]

Countering the accounts of those who saw an American Airlines jet hit the Pentagon, he reminded us that “physical facts trump witnesses’ contradictory testimony every time.” This is true, but as I see it, the physical evidence here both trumps and verifies the eyewitness stories, which are really not very contradictory. Yet Reynolds comfortably stakes his reputation on the summation that “what we are left with is an overwhelming case against the Flight 77 theory.”

Soon on Reynolds’ heels came another “paleoconservative” former Republican economist: Paul Craig Roberts, who served as Assistant Treasury Secretary under president Reagan in 1981-82, a noted architect of "Reaganomics," a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and author of "The New Color Line" (1995) and “The Tyranny of Good Intentions” (2000). A crusader against judicial activism, in the 2000 election he called for the arrest of the Florida Supreme Court that tried to overturn Bush’s “victory” there. [4]

P.C. Roberts: Crusader for stolen elections and 9/11 Truth

But at about this same time Roberts also started writing a daily syndicated column on conservative/libertarian lines that within short order was churning out hundreds of articles flaying the Bush agenda. He said he hasn’t changed his political ideology but “just can’t respect a party leadership who doesn’t respect the truth.” The ruling “Jacobin” neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al), their disastrous Iraq policy and their possible role in 9/11 were the basis for his repeated calls for the impeachment of President “Darth Dubyous.” Roberts took a more solid line with 9/11 than Reynolds had, getting less involved overall in the mechanics. But he did at least write in June 2005 “I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility.” [5]

Roberts and Reynolds supported Bush in 2000 and worked for him in 2001, respectively. Both later came to blame the people around Bush for not just allowing but carrying out the 9/11 attacks (or at least, apparently, the demolitions that capped them off). Both came to oppose Bush from the Republican right, and neither came out strongly about their 9/11 suspicions before his narrow 2004 election, waiting until after his second inauguration to drop their bombshells. For what it's worth, both broke their stories within two weeks of each other and both via kooky 9/11 conspiratainment reporter Greg Szymanski (see sources below), possibly a sign of some co-ordination.

I can't say all this proves anything, but it is well worth noting, particularly in Reynolds' case. Some take his bold stand in denying not only the official story but even the very planes we saw as a sign that he truly believes his stance and is willing to put it all on the line. Thus he lends credibility to a theory of dubious factual legitimacy. In fact it's possible that back there in the shadows a deal was made, and he feels so free to make incorrect statements becuase he's beeen granted advance immunity - and probably even some reward - so long as he pushes the stupid cases and not the dangerous ones. The possibility can be neither proved nor ignored. Sources: [1] Reynolds, Morgan. Interview conducted June 30, 2005. Liberty Forum.[2] Greg Szymanski. “9/11 INSIDE JOB: Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D” American Patriot Friends Network. Jun 12, 2005. [3] Reynolds, Morgan, PhD. "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories:: Part II of a reply to Jim Hoffman." March 5 2006 [4] Roberts, Paul Craig. “Enabling Act for the Judiciary?”LewRockwell.com. November 27, 2000 [5] Szymanski, Greg. “Former Asst. Sec. Of Treasury Under Reagan Doubts Official 9/11 Story: Claims Neo Con Agenda Is As 'Insane As Hitler And Nazi Party When They Invaded Russia In Dead Of Winter.'” Prison Planet. June 24 2005.

6 comments:

Anonymous
said...

This is an interesting blog here. Are there any more right-wingers that have come out against the official 911 story? It's a good point to make about confusing people about what really happened. What better way than with one of your own.

That's the main gist for former White House Republicans, other than Barb Honegger who gets her own post soon, the oddest case of all. Numerous right-wingers have opposed the neocons - it's a major rift often tied in w/Anti-Semitism (the neocons being uniformly pro-Israel and largely Jewish) - neocons are also socially liberal by Repub standards - ex: Dick Cheney disagreeing w/Bush on gay marriage. Beyond that there's the more liberal politicians accused of partisan hackship but often pushing better arguments, (Cynthia McKinney, Robert Bowman, Ray McGovern, etc) and the retired military experts who've mostly also sided with the bunk evidence, and a few others...these are all coming in due time. :)

Well, Roberts ' case is fairly strong and nicely vague, but with Reynolds that's a great question. It almost makes one wonder if he's sincere, as in fact I noted with the possible deal made in the shadows: immunity for BS theories. These stupid arguments, esp. when coming from "trustworthy" elite types, suck more energy from the movement by putting people on the case of either pushing or disproving them. It's another pinprick injury to the movement, the accumulation of which has beld the movement steadily over the years.

OBVIOULSY this Reynolds guy is a sacrificial shill, ruining his reputation to make the No Plane theory part and parcel of the Truth Movement and thereby discredit it. I wonder how much they paid him.

Wikipedia: A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists and governments.

-------------

There are many LYING SHILLS about, strongly suggesting the 9/11 plot to justify war with Iraq is actively being COVERED UP. If so the agents of the coverup are accessories to mass murder. Keep an eye on these guys, one of them will slip up and reveal the money trail straight back to the perps.

Thanks for the thoughts smoking gun. Indeed, the lies and liars help expose the truth. I only hope these ones aren't the overly-obvious lies to distract us from the more subtle and widely-accepted ones... It gets complicated.

The Frustration Ends Here... Or Starts, Depending...

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers."- Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191

---

The "9/11 Truth" scene has made major inroads on the mainstream American psyche in the last two years. A record number of people now believe the government, at best, allowed the attacks to occur. Personally, I'm convinced the kernel of this is the same deep-seated suspicion I and many others have felt since that fateful morning. But the reason it's coming out in such a flood now has numerous explanations, one of which is the cumulative effect of various alternate theories, most notably the strain spread via the video Loose Change.---It is my opinion that these arguments have swelled the movement for all the wrong reasons. The “hard proof” crowd have claimed to find literally hundreds of “smoking gun” clues left laying out in the open. While some have real validity, many, on closer inspection, are fraudulent. Yet somehow the worst arguments get more air play and capture more attention and so the “Truth” movement has become dominated by the desire not to provide the most rational explanation but the one most opposite to the official story. Beyond providing endless distraction and requiring endless de-bunking (and they keep coming back!), this approach alienates intelligent skeptics, whom we need on our side.---It's not for me to say who has intentionally misled and who is simply wrong, but herein I hope to help break the spell of one of their key arguments – no big Boeing jet hit the Pentagon on 9/11 - in hopes of getting some people off that train before it crashes for good. Luckily others have gone before me, and this once crowded carriage is steadily emptying. Through careful research, I have found as have others that almost all evidence points clearly to a 757 as the attack vehicle, piloted by whatever means, and in the process have exposed a long thread of apparent disinformation running from 9/11 to the present and continuing despite all evidence to the current day.

---Truth is a road, not a destination, and it's much safer to walk.---Please feel free to leave comments. I hope I've convinced, provoked, or otherwise effected people with my words here and would love to see any feedback, positive or negative. You can post anonmymously.---Words about The Frustrating Fraud and its author:

"This site [...] does what few do -- take on the Pentagon no-plane/no-jetliner theory head-on and expose the errors of those promoting it."

"[Y]ou’ve done a nice job on continuing to gather facts and reality based information about the Pentagon attack. Some of the comments gave me a laugh or two as well. You’ve accomplished far more in the past couple years in trying to separate facts from fiction than I ever did with that giant 1.5 million+ reads thread! - "Cat Herder" via e-mail

"Caustic Logic made a sad attempt to neutralize our info by casting doubt on us personally. It's pathetic and obvious. And he's a bad writer too. It's like he is a cointelpro flunkie but he keeps trying!"- Craig Ranke

"People like you and Jim Hoffman are dangerous to the truth. You will calmly suggest irrational suggestions in order that you mold the mind of the reader."- Aldo Marquis

"CL, we know you will never amount to anything more than a trash collecting janitor [...] is there some sort of sanitation website where we can check your credentials as a trash throwin janitor?"- Rob Balsamo/John Doe X